Chronologically and geographically isolated revelation = god is unjust and unfair.

[bowingtoGod]

I understand what your saying. My point was that if there is a God and it is all-powerful or close to by our perspective allowing suffering to occur is not necessarily evil. It probably just doesn't really care about us one way or another.

Hmmm why do you think that?

 

[bowingtoGod]

I disagree with this. Any good that can arise from suffering can arise without the suffering altogether. Causing or allowing suffering is malevolent, and "the ends don't justify the means."

If I murder bank tellers in order to feed the homeless am I a good or an evil person?

Two claims I will make and defend:
1) Many of the "good" things that come from suffering would actually be meaningless in the absence of suffering. There is no "heroism" if there are no fires or monsters to save people from -- but would people really miss "heroes" if they weren't burning/being raped in the first place? I wouldn't think so.

2) Other "good" things that come from suffering could be done without the suffering, and as I said, the ends don't justify the means. Any God that causes or allows suffering even if they're trying to do some good is malevolent, especially if the good could come about without the suffering in the first place.

salaam
The ends do not justify the means. That is, even if a person brought forth good out of evil, if his intention was evil, he will be punished. And if he meant good but evil came out, then no punishment.
The only time where killing is allowed is in war (and there are severe restrictions) or for murder/spreading mischief in the land.
Or... wait was this topic about my religion or about any? Oh geez... I forgot
Suffering can be avoided and should be, but it is also meant to test us. It wouldn't be much of a test if there were only happiness
God doesn't cause suffering, he just lets it happen. Whether or not it turns to good is up to us.

 

[Meow Mix]

salaam
Suffering can be avoided and should be, but it is also meant to test us. It wouldn't be much of a test if there were only happiness
God doesn't cause suffering, he just lets it happen. Whether or not it turns to good is up to us.

Why would a being like God, who knows anything automatically that there is to be known, need to "test" anything? Tests are for fallible beings that aren't sure about things, not for gods. That doesn't make any sense.

If God allows suffering to happen then God is negligent, and therefore malevolent.

 

[bowingtoGod]

Why would a being like God, who knows anything automatically that there is to be known, need to "test" anything? Tests are for fallible beings that aren't sure about things, not for gods. That doesn't make any sense.

If God allows suffering to happen then God is negligent, and therefore malevolent.

The test isn't for God, it is for us.
If he intervened in everything then the "test" would be pointless
Salaam

 

[Madhuri]

The test isn't for God, it is for us.
If he intervened in everything then the "test" would be pointless
Salaam

I think she means God's need to test.

 

[JustWondering]

Hmmm why do you think that?

I do not see any evidence of the divine in this world. If there was a deity that took an interest surely they would intervene in a positive or negative way and I don't see that happening in our world.

 

[Madhuri]

I do not see any evidence of the divine in this world. If there was a deity that took an interest surely they would intervene in a positive or negative way and I don't see that happening in our world.

Remember that the divine is not necessarily a deity that takes an interest.

 

[Meow Mix]

The test isn't for God, it is for us.
If he intervened in everything then the "test" would be pointless
Salaam

As Madhuri correctly pointed out, I was talking about God's need to test us.

God doesn't have to do an experiment to see how something reacts (such as testing us to see whether we choose right or wrong, etc.) All God has to do is think about it and God will know the answer, if God is omniscient.

There's no need to cause people to suffer.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why would a fair and just super intelligent being only present his miracles and/or messiah to a select few in a specific location eons before and after, as well as around the globe away, from most of the people that ever existed? And then to top it off with, expect everyone to accept a telephone game testimony of these miracles and affirmations of truth? Why would it not make more sense to share with everyone equally any reason to affirm faith in any specific direction, rather than letting such imperfect means be the only source of discovering the truth, let alone the most important truth to know for anyone's soul?

Regional deities tend to take care of their own.

 

[Willamena]

Regional deities tend to take care of their own.

That's why they're regional. :yes:

 

[tomato1236]

Meow Mix. Can you think of a reason God would give us adversity?

 

[Meow Mix]

Meow Mix. Can you think of a reason God would give us adversity?

The short answer is no. The long answer is I can see why at first it appears like adversity's needed for people to "show their quality" -- after all, there are no heroes if there are no monsters. However that line of reasoning sinks real quick if you think about the fact that people wouldn't miss heroes indeed if there were no monsters.

Heroes are only good if suffering exists. Without suffering, there are no heroes -- but that isn't a bad thing. It's only bad if there are no heroes but there is still suffering.

Consider: right now you're being not-attacked by a Balrog. Are you currently regretting that a Maia named Gandalf isn't saving you right now? Or are you content?

 

[tomato1236]

I feel content. To whom, if there were value in people showing their quality, is it necessary to show their quality too? Surely God would already know their quality.

Are there other benefits you can imagine from having adversity?

 

[Meow Mix]

I feel content. To whom, if there were value in people showing their quality, is it necessary to show their quality too? Surely God would already know their quality.

Are there other benefits you can imagine from having adversity?

Only one, though it doesn't vanquish the problem of evil: boredom.

There are exactly zero video games or movies or forms of entertainment that don't entail some sort of simulated suffering or problem to strive against; some wrong that needs right. That could be one use for adversity.

However such boredom could be avoided in a world without suffering by simply providing virtual problems that don't really cause actual suffering; so the PoE is unscathed.

Other than that... no, I really can't imagine a purpose or meaning for adversity to exist. Can you think of any?

(Of course, that's assuming an omnipotent/omniscient creator god exists who is benevolent -- of course adversity would exist in an atheistic universe. It's interesting to me that the universe does tend to appear as though it is indeed atheistic in every respect... is that my bias? Or does it really appear atheistic on every expectation we would have of such a universe?)

 

[bowingtoGod]

As Madhuri correctly pointed out, I was talking about God's need to test us.

God doesn't have to do an experiment to see how something reacts (such as testing us to see whether we choose right or wrong, etc.) All God has to do is think about it and God will know the answer, if God is omniscient.

There's no need to cause people to suffer.

Salaam
I am sorry for the confusion, what I meant was that yes God knows what will happen. But we don't. And the test is for us to know why we ended up where we will be.
Salaam

 

[tomato1236]

Salaam
I am sorry for the confusion, what I meant was that yes God knows what will happen. But we don't. And the test is for us to know why we ended up where we will be.
Salaam

I don't know about that. But I've gone through some real crap and I have grown from those experiences. I think it's like good parents who allow their kids to choose, even if they choose poorly. So they can learn to choose well, expect consequences, and eventually stand on their own two feet.

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't know about that. But I've gone through some real crap and I have grown from those experiences. I think it's like good parents who allow their kids to choose, even if they choose poorly. So they can learn to choose well, expect consequences, and eventually stand on their own two feet.

Such preparation -- wisdom, it could be called -- for future calamity is unrequired in a world without the potential for calamity.

Again, no reason for suffering if indeed there is no suffering. You wouldn't need such experiences to know not to do it next time since there can't be a first time. So, that doesn't seem like a good explanation or use for suffering to me because it's effectively self-validating (but needn't be at all).

 

[tomato1236]

Such preparation -- wisdom, it could be called -- for future calamity is unrequired in a world without the potential for calamity.

Again, no reason for suffering if indeed there is no suffering. You wouldn't need such experiences to know not to do it next time since there can't be a first time. So, that doesn't seem like a good explanation or use for suffering to me because it's effectively self-validating (but needn't be at all).

Oh, well I don't believe people are without the ability, or the need to make decisions in the next life. So I suppose that comes down to what you believe about it.

 

[Meow Mix]

Oh, well I don't believe people are without the ability, or the need to make decisions in the next life. So I suppose that comes down to what you believe about it.

Is it possible for a person in the alleged next life to make a decision that leads to suffering?

 

[tomato1236]

Is the only product of overcoming difficulties the ability to overcome more difficulties?